Yet another puzzle for the local Einsteins
 

Can a plane take off form a treadmill that moves back with the same speed as the plane?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...llitakeoff.jpg

P.S. A very simple physics task but lots of people get tricked with it :)

No. The plane is not actually moving forward, therefore, no air gets under the wings to lift it up.

even if it does take off, it will crash into the front part of the treadmill :thumbsup

I think you fucked up the phrasing of the question, plus the setup in that picture is all fucked, the plane needs to be facing the opposite direction. The way a typical treadmill works would cause the plane in that picture to just roll off it towards the back with zero chance of the plane taking off.

Excellent observations

That's just picture and the direction is shown correctly: the plane moves forward and the treadmill moves back with the same speed :winkwink:

I still don't get it, like kane said the plane wouldn't actually be moving, so why would it take off?

And like I suggested, the only way to make it take off is make the plane face the opposite direction, and then as treadmill moves it would cause the plane to move backwards, which would make the air move under the wings, and cause it to briefly take off.

Is this supposed to be tricky? This shit won't even stump grade school kids.

Absolutely no tricks at all. The basic 6th grade school physics is enough :)

If you're in a falling elevator, can you jump in the air at the same speed you're falling ...and avoid injury?

This depends. If the elevator is falling with an acceleration of gravity, you won't be able to jump, because you will be in zero a gravity. If it's falling slower than that (because of friction and air resistance), you will be able to jump and compensate the difference between your jump speed and the speed of еру falling elevator. So you can compensate it in case if the elevator has felt form about one meter (you can't jump higher if you are not a trained sportsman). Course in case if the elevator has felt from 10 meters (~ 3 floors), your jump won't help you at all... This is obvious, isn't it?

My example is not more difficult. As a hint, I'll remind you yet another task from the school: will the pilot hear the sound of the jet engine behind him, if his plane moves faster than the speed of sound (it's ultrasonic)? Every kid knows the answer, isn't it? :)

It's not about the speed in relation to the ground but in relation to the air... Yes the plane would take off...

No, because you're in a specific inertial system...

I've had this debate with many idiots
I say that the plane would just be all "¿what treadmill¿"
Why? Because the plane could give a fuck to say what the wheels want
The engines generate thrust and that will move the plane forward. Period.
Most people seem to imagine this plane having an imaginary chain holding it back
Why would the wheels spinning on a treadmill make a fuck
Would it not move forward in spite of that?

I say OF COURSE IT WOULD

Fuck anyone else's answer unless someone makes sense
Hash code PAGING ADRACO
Adraco would know

And... you are totally right :thumbsup

Yes, it will take off... in case if its engine will be powerful enough (like almost all the modern aircrafts) to overcome the wheel friction. The plane is not a car and it doesn't use its wheels to move. It uses them only as a fulcrum, but not as a moving force. If the wheels get stuck, the plane will move forward anyways.

No . For the same reason you get hurt in an automobile crash .
I always thought that would work when I was six
Until I learned how shit works
Now I don't believe this

What wheel friction? In this scenario there's less friction than they'd even have on the ground for normal takeoff
Meanwhile the plane would only be on the belt for a second until it jumped off of there

Then I've also heard some fools say
Well
What if the belt was as long as the whole runway?

Plane would still move forward at the same rate of speed and take off, if you ask me.

Well, or in that instance it'd veer off the thing
Who knows

I don't want to be an Einstein ...

You don't want to be an Einstein like a garbage collector doesn't want $68,000,000,000

You're saying there would be as much friction with the belt as there would normally be with the ground? Or more? Or what ?

It would not matter

1. Imagine you are a person running on a treadmill at 5mph, and treadmill is set to 5mph. Clearly you would be stationary, that's the whole point of a treadmill that you exert energy, while not moving. No?

2. Now, simply replace yourself running, with an airplane. What would cause the airplane to "take off" if it's stationary, like we established in previous step?

I guess this is why I majored in English, not Science lol. :)

If you think of an automobile which relies on what I would refer to as being a friction based propulsion, sure, a conveyor belt turning against the wheels would hold it back

Planes, they use thrust to propel them down the runway and to begin generating some lift
Meanwhile they take to the air and the thrust is then propelling forward the plane which then is in turn creating lift by forcing air over the wings

That's why you stall a plane if you're driving it too slow

See

What in all fucking FUCK
FFS
What the fuck even the fuck

You should go to the school, man. The 6th grade class of basic physics is what you really need :) A plane is not a running human and not a car. It doesn't push itself using ground. It uses air as a point of force application. Just imagine a toy car at a treadmill which is tied by a rope to your hand. You stay in front of that toy car and pull it in your direction. Will it move to you or it will move backwards? :winkwink:

Hint: that toy car just like any plane doesn't use its wheels to move, so it doesn't care where the ground/treadmill moves to.

1.The whole point of a treadmill is losing calories... not exerting energy...:1orglaugh
2.An airplane is called an airplane not a groundplane or a wheelplane... An airplane coudn't care less about it's "stationary" speed compared to the ground...

When you are in a windtunnel... you can "fly" while staying "stationary" compared to the ground...

I have tried to convince people on this one before
Don't let it drive you crazy

In a windtunnel the air moves, in this scenario with the information given there is no reason to believe that the air is moving.

What do engines do?

BTW, what about my similar question: will a pilot hear a sound of the jet engine behind him, if his plane moves faster than the speed of sound (it's ultrasonic)? ;)

What engines? Please point out where "engines" are mentioned in this scenario. All was said that the airplane "moves". For all we know the airplane is getting towed by trucks, or was just launched from a giant slingshot. I have no idea why you guys are assuming that "engines" are involved here. All that is known that the airplane "moves", there is no reason to make any assumption about what is causing the "movement" of the airplane.

Not so greedy:)... this puzzle first:

https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...in-puzzle.html

So is it depending on free fall with gravity vs fall with friction or is it depending on from how high it falls?
Two different things you posted.

and then there is the "trained sportman factor"... He will break his neck against the elevator ceiling because he jumped too high....

It's amazing how some people here finished elementary school...

I left school when I'm twelve years old, myself

how the fuck should i know? i cunt a4d a plane or a treadmill to find out... :(

All it proves is how irrelevant stuff like this that is taught in schools is, when it comes to actual practical applications of adult life

You have asked about a falling lift. That can be a real life one (which has friction and air resistance) and a theoretical one which falls down in vacuum w/o rails etc. Yes, these are two VERY different cases :pimp

First of all it was not me who asked.

Secondly, not those different things I was talking about.

You mentioned that it depend of whether it is frictioned (then you can jump) vs non frictioned (you can't).

Then you proceeded that it depends on height (this is the DIFFERENT thing from friction/non friction I was referring to).

So now I ask, does it depend on friction/non friction or on low height vs high height? << these are the 2 different things I was referring to.

puzzzles puzzles for all

Test the theory by jumping out of a moving car.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No it wont take off...

If you thought it would - FAIL.....

Sorry...

I respectfully decline being in agreeance on this one

Nothing is providing lift - What part of the plane on the treadmill is giving it any lift?..

The engines are making it go faster - It's still stationary on the treadmill - No LIFT!....

No lift no fly...

as long as the wind under the wings is a greater force than above, the plane can lift. Therefore, a 200mph wind would lift a plan off the ground even if it was stationary. If the plane is stationary and there´s no air flow created by the engines driving the plane forward it will not be able to fly.

Given this, as the jet engine pushes into the air, no matter what the ground, or runway, or treadmill is doing, the engines will be pushing the plane through the air anyway, so will take off, if the runway was long enough. The engines and wings would still need the same distance to take off!

The wheels can spin back or forward and are of no relevance to the plane, wing and engines.

I think that the plane would move forward as much or more than it normally would, personally
I didn't know that airplane wings could generate lift without forward movement
I guess pushing the air over the wings could generate lift but I think the air is pushed out behind the wings
Talking out of my ass as I am no expert though